Study Questions

Does Socrates make any philosophical
assertions, and if so, of what kind are they? On
one hand, he denies having any kind of specialized
knowledge, and on the other hand, he makes
assertions such as "the unexamined life is not
worth living" and "no one ever knowingly does
wrong." Can we reconcile these two positions?

One (but by no means the only) way of answering
this question is to suggest that Socrates' ethical
assertions are not really assertions of fact. They
are maxims more than substantial claims, and cannot
really be verified or disproved. Certainly, this
can be said of his claim that the unexamined life
is not worth living. The assertion that no one
ever knowingly does wrong is a little more
difficult to step around, but can be managed
through an appeal to some of Socrates' other
maxims. Socrates tends to equate wisdom with
goodness, seeing the ultimate end of wisdom and
knowledge as being that it gives us the wisdom and
knowledge to act rightly. Wisdom would not be so
valuable if it were not so intimately connected to
the good. Certainly, Socrates, the wisest of men,
has lived faultlessly. If anything, he serves as
evidence in favor of the claim that knowledge helps
us to avoid evil.

Was Socrates trying to get himself acquitted?
If he was not, what effect was he trying to exert
on the jury?

Socrates is quite explicit on this question.
Getting acquitted is completely immaterial to him.
The only thing of importance is the truth. Rather
than provide arguments in his defense, Socrates
insists solely on speaking the truth, which he
feels should be sufficient to acquit him if only
the jury were just. Socrates points out that he
has always been consistent in his behavior and his
values, and he would be doing himself a great
injustice to be inconsistent now. Rather than
behave differently before a court, he continues to
behave as he always has.

We might want to question whether all of this is
true, however. This is certainly the rhetoric that
Socrates employs, but his speech is so laden with
irony that we should not be hasty to take his words
at face value. Certainly, he seems to accept his
condemnation, but we see in his many rhetorical
flourishes and his merciless attack on Meletus
that pure truth is not his only aim. Perhaps he
also wants to have a deeper effect on the jury, to
lead them to acknowledge the unjust state of
affairs that persists in the deteriorating city-
state.

Socrates asserts that he is wise only in that
he knows that he knows nothing. He sets up the
model of the philosopher as one who does not have
any specialized knowledge, but who is instead well-
skilled at revealing the ignorance of others.
Plato, Socrates' immediate successor, wants to
claim all sorts of positive wisdom for the
philosopher (such as knowledge of the theory of
forms). To what extent do you think Socrates is
correct in saying that philosophy does not consist
of positive wisdom?

The answer to this question largely depends upon
your conception of philosophy. The majority of
philosophers since Plato have followed in Plato's
tradition, using philosophical methods to try to
build up positive systems of knowledge. This
tradition includes Aristotle, Descartes, Kant,
Hegel, and most other major philosophers. However,
there is another line of thinking that applies to
different philosophers to greater and lesser
extents that is more in accord with Socrates'
teaching. These philosophers see the role of
philosophy as one of provoking and critiquing
thought without building any positive assertions of
its own. Arguments could be made for including
both Nietzsche and Wittgenstein in this camp.

Characterize Socratic irony and the role it
plays in Socrates' method. To what extent and to
what effect is this irony employed? Can we take
anything Socrates' says seriously? And is there a
rigid connection between being serious and speaking
the truth?

What is the supernatural sign or divine voice
that Socrates alludes to at 31c-d and 40a? Might
we count this as some kind of specialized
knowledge, the kind which Socrates vehemently
denies having? Or is this a kind of intuition or
inspiration of the kind Socrates identifies with
the poets? How seriously does Socrates mean what
he says here? And if he is joking, what is the
purpose of the joke?

Is there a conflict between 31a, where Socrates
claims he is irreplaceable, and 39c-d, where he
claims that many more critics will take his place
if he is executed? How can these two claims be
reconciled?

Discuss Socrates' attitude toward religion. He
is on trial in part for being impious and
irreligious, and responds only very briefly to
these charges. Furthermore, his attitudes toward
the supernatural seem to waver a great deal. In
his cross-examination of Meletus, he seems to
suggest that only the gods and the children of the
gods are supernatural, and yet at other points, he
alludes to his supernatural sign and to the
possibility of human souls living after death. Is
Socrates guilty of impiety?

Explain and discuss the elenchus, or
cross-examination, between Socrates and Meletus.
Whose side would you take in their argument? Can
you think of arguments Meletus might have made
against Socrates had he been quicker witted?